Soviet-German relations

[Domen]

No, I call skirmishes skirmishes. Both sides fought for several hours and knew who they were shooting at. Their "allies".

You apparently didn't read about it thoroughly enough.

The incident which took place near Lvov between elements of German Gebirgsjaeger-Regiment 137. of 2. Geb.Div. and Soviet reconnaissance battalion of 24. Tank Brigade involved three sides in fact - also some unit of Polish defenders of Lvov was involved in the exchange of fire. So nobody really knew who was firing to whom. And the exchange of fire by no means lasted for several hours. Everything was over after maybe half an hour (at most).

Or like German-Polish non-aggression agreement of 1934?
Do you understand the difference between non-aggression pact and military alliance?

Yes I do. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (and other, previous & later, Soviet-German agreements) was not a "non-aggression" pact.

In non-aggression pacts you do not agree on invading and partitioning other countries.

Poland had a non-aggresion agreement with Germany but also with Soviet Union (signed in 1932):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

Yes, we already discussed this - the Soviets attacked the Polish forces which were for some reason outside of Polish territory.

There was no something like "Polish territory" at that time.

Poland was a new-born state and the final shape of its borders was not yet determined.

Situation of the Soviet Union was similar, by the way.

What Poles were doing near Wilno and in Belorussia in the first place?

??? Living there. Those were local Poles. Check the German population census of Wilno from 1916:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_history_of_the_Vilnius_region

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_history_of_the_Vilnius_region#1916_German_census

City of Wilna
1916
Poles (50.2%)
Jews (43.5%)
Lithuanians (2.6%)
Russians (1.5%)
Other (2.2%)
Total 140,800

Source: 1916 German census[15]

When the Red Army attacked Vilna, they fought against local Self-Defence units, formed by inhabitants.

 

[red_elk]

So nobody really knew who was firing to whom. And the exchange of fire by no means lasted for several hours.

Need source for that.

In non-aggression pacts you do not agree on invading and partitioning other countries.

And show me the place in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where there was agreement about invading, partitioning of other countries, or military alliance for that matter.

 

[red_elk]

Poland was a new-born state and the final shape of its borders was not yet determined.

And it started to determine its borders, by starting war against Soviet Russia.

Those were local Poles.

Under command of Polish army officers, as we discussed before.

 

[Domen]

And it started to determine its borders, by starting war against Soviet Russia.

And Soviet Russia also started to determine its borders by starting war against Poland. And not only against Poland - they also invaded Baltic states (and Poland actually helped in defence against Soviets there). But we also already discussed it.

Soviet Russia had enough forces to fight against many enemies. At no time did the combined White Armies number more than 500.000 men under arms and they were spread out on four different fronts. In Poland they also outnumbered the Polish forces.

On 01.06.1920 the Red Army numbered 4.587.076 soldiers (in the field army and in military districts / garrisons):

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=126370&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p1465303

Against Poland alone they sent over 1.500.000 - 2.000.000, including between 795.645 and 850.000 (and in August 1920 strength of this Front reached its peak - 1.280.000) in the Western Front, which headed directly towards Warsaw:

http://christopher-eger.suite101.com/the-red-army-19171923-a32832

Apart from the Western Front also the South-Western Front attacked Poland.

Under command of Polish army officers, as we discussed before.

The Polish army was formed in the very last days of 1918 and initially it was a "huge force" numbering 5.000 men (as many as a small town).

So maybe you are talking about retired ethnic Polish officers of German / Austrian / Russian armies of WW1.

Need source for that.

Later. I have no time now.

I remember I posted info about these incidents on some forum. But how to find it after such a long time.

I don't even remember what forum it was. Or maybe I will search for books where I found this info.

 

[red_elk]

Domen, can we please stop talking about Poland here? (I know, it's difficult for you)
You are reiterating the same arguments over and over again - you can just re-read old thread where they were answered already.

This topic is about Soviet-German relations.
If you can add something valuable to "alliance-not alliance" discussion, or anything else related to OP, this will be much appreciated.

 

[Domen]

Ok. Let's talk about the Soviet Union.

This topic is about Soviet-German relations.

But Poland was an important issue in the history of Soviet-German relations. :/

 

[Crezth]

A Soviet-German relations thread? THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT POLAND.

 

[Domen]

A Soviet-German relations thread? THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT POLAND.

Let's talk about Trolland:

 

[Dachs]

Or with Nazism - if you want just one word instead of two.

I didn't say that.

 

[Domen]

Sorry it was ParkCungHee.

 

[Tahuti]

And show me the place in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where there was agreement about invading, partitioning of other countries, or military alliance for that matter.

Actually, the partition of Poland (and several other countries in the region) was stipulated in the MR pact as part of several secret protocols within the aformentioned pact, and were only revealed by the end of WWII.

 

[red_elk]

Actually, the partition of Poland (and several other countries in the region) was stipulated in the MR pact as part of several secret protocols within the aformentioned pact, and were only revealed by the end of WWII.

It was agreement about spheres of influence, if you read it carefully. Neither side declared intentions to invade these countries or give military assistance to the other side.

 

[Domen]

It was agreement about spheres of influence, if you read it carefully.

A. Learn:

1) To make use of other types of interpretation than just literal, language interpretation.
2) To read between the lines.
3) To analyze documents in their context. Not just their literal wording - irrespective of the context.

B. Check:

1) Other Soviet-German agreements from the same time period.

spheres of influence

In Molotov-Ribbentrop we had "spheres of influence", just like in Afghanistan we had Soviet & later American "peacekeeping missions".

Do you understand? Of course this is just an example.

But if someone creates a secret protocol to an official pact, it is obvious that in this pact they will try to use misleading terms to describe real intentions. After all in that official pact nobody they could not call a spade a spade, because it was official and available to public.

And regarding secret protocols - they were secret, but there was still a considerable risk of someone discovering their contents.

And indeed, American intelligence obtained knowledge of what was in the secret protocol. As well as British.

Strangely the British intelligence did not share this knowledge with neither France nor Poland.

 

[red_elk]

A. Learn:

1) To make use of other types of interpretation than just literal, language interpretation.
2) To read between the lines.
3) To analyze documents in their context. Not just their literal wording - irrespective of the context.

B. Check:

1) Other Soviet-German agreements from the same time period.

This was an official international agreement. No one gives a flying carpet about what people can read between the lines there, because only exact text of the document has legal validity.

 

[Domen]

This was an official international agreement. No one gives a flying carpet about what people can read between the lines there, because only exact text of the document has legal validity.

Ok. So if you say that literal wording is the most important thing, then clearly Soviet and German ideologies were very friendly to each other.

After all the Soviet-German agreement of 28 September 1939 was named "The Treaty about Borders and Friendship".

So there was Soviet-German friendship, as we can see.

And no one gives a flying carpet about your claims that Hitler hated Communism (only Soviet-Nazi FRIENDSHIP had legal validity).

because only exact text of the document has legal validity.

It is far from true.

Exact text can sometimes be wrongly edited, and in such case real intentions of parties are what count. Of course both parties must confirm and agree on what were their real intentions (which were wrongly edited in their agreement, so that it has different real, literal meaning, than intended meaning).

Of course when text is correctly edited and has the same meaning as real intentions - then real intentions also count above all.

But in such case real intentions are perfectly reflected in the text of an agreement, there is no conflict.

This was an official international agreement.

Only the blablablabla part which was publicly announced was official.

The secret protocol which contained the most important provisions, was not official.

 

[red_elk]

After all the Soviet-German agreement of 28 September 1939 was named "The Treaty about Borders and Friendship".

Yes. Treaty of friendship had some legal consequences - whatever is written in the agreement (such as not shoot at each other ). The legal consequences of secret protocol to MRP also only means what is literally written there.

You can't sign rent agreement and say that you "read between the lines" that you don't need to pay. Because your landlord may read between the lines that you must pay twice more than was written.

 

[Domen]

The MRP pact was not a completely separate and isolated from political reality of that time document - as you attempt to claim. You must look at the MRP pact in the context of the whole history of Soviet-German relations at that time. Most of Soviet-German relations at that time was not even done in official agreements, but during secret diplomatic talks & negotiations behind the scenes. Check for example the correspondence and cablegrams between German and Soviet embassies from period August - October 1939. All of these materials are available. Particularly interesting are talks between Schulenburg and Molotov.

You can't sign rent agreement and say that you "read between the lines" that you don't need to pay. Because your landlord may read between the lines that you must pay twice more than was written.

Civil law and international law / diplomacy / history - these are different things.

A piece of paper is also not always worth as much as we would think.

Especially when such a piece of paper is made by countries which didn't respect the laws - like Nazi Germany / Soviet Union.

Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union broke their non-aggression pacts with Poland in September 1939.

And both invaded Poland without formal declaration of war (Hitler made such a declaration but when invasion was already in progress).

Soviet propaganda even claimed that they were in Poland on a "peacekeeping mission" (liberation, blablabla), not war.

 

[red_elk]

The MRP pact was not a completely separate and isolated from political reality of that time document - as you attempt to claim.

It was not separate from reality at all. It served its purposes for the USSR very well.

The Soviet message of the MRP and secret protocol to the Germany was approx. the following:
"If you want to destroy Poland, it's your business. Just don't enter Western Ukraine and Belorussia and you won't get problems from us." If it sounds for you as alliance, well, then NATO and Russia are now closest allies and cordial friends.

The Soviet goals in signing the protocol were
1. Divert German aggression from USSR to the West.
2. Keep German troops away from vital centers of the USSR (Minsk, Kiev, Leningrad)
Both were achieved and status quo was kept for almost 2 years.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The problem is that they couldn't fight against some Western power(s), as long as there was Poland between them and Western Europe.

You know they have contraptions that allow you to travel over the seas now, right?

So I guess first of all they were preparing to crush Poland - "the bastard of Versailles".

And only then to crush the rest of Europe - including some Western power(s).

You understand what the first Foreign Intervention was, right? So if they're preparing for a second one, then do you think their efforts would be offensive or defensive? If the whole psychology of Soviet socialism was to build the bulwark of socialism until the next big proletarian revolution comes, then do you think their efforts would be better directed towards preserving their state, or gambling in wars across foreign borders? "Carrying the revolution to Europe" was officially abandoned as Soviet policy in 1924.

By the way:

"The bastard of Versailles" is actually not a German term - this term was invented by the Soviets (or rather Bolsheviks).

And rightfully so. Formed in the vacuum of a collapsed imperial power, and enabled and encouraged to behave imperially. A perfect example of the folly of nation-state "self-determination:" each ethnic-identified state should have the equal opportunity to oppress other ethnic-identified states.

The Germans used another, but also very similar, term - "the temporary state" - "Saisonstaat" in German.

This term was used already in Weimar Republic (actually after Hitler took power, relations between Germany and Poland temporarily improved - they were terrible before Hitler came to power, with Germans conducting customs war against Poland and putting a trade embargo on Polish coal).

Indeed, those Nazis treated them so well. Is that why you so resent the Soviet intervention to save half your country, because you would rather all Poloes have enjoyed two years' more of the hospitality of ideologues who consider you to be subhuman?

 

[Mize]

Cheezy, there's so much wrong with your post that I can barely wrap my mind around it.

About the oversea-going contraptions, irrelevant. The USSR had the largest land army at the time, rivaled maybe only by France, and little to no fleet. At least no fleet that could be effective in an European scenario. It was easier to run over Poland and the Baltic states than to wage an amphibious war against Germany or whoever. I'll give you a metaphor. We're in a bar and you want to punch me in the face, but there's a girl between us. You can either go around a couple of tables and other patrons to reach me, and know I'll be waiting for you with an ashtray in my fist, or you can push the girl aside and sock me in the jaw right away.*

About your second point, right up until the end of WWII the fundamental Soviet ideology was World revolution, and I don't care if anybody says otherwise. It was only after WWII that Stalin somewhat abandoned the idea and really focused on his "Socialism in one country". If he had abandoned it in '24, how do you explain that all the territories conquered during the war were "sovietized" by the NKVD following the RKKA and later became par of the Warsaw pact? Also, how do you explain the major financial, political and military aid the USSR was giving away to all sorts of communist/socialist parties around the world throughout the Cold war? The Soviet Union never did let go of the idea of World revolution.

Your third point is unintelligible. Poles are poles, Russians Russians, Germans Germans and so on. They've been oppressing eachother for centuries.

And finally, the Nazis might have been harsh on the Poles, but the Soviets weren't Mother Theresa either. Just look up Katyn. They didn't invade Poland to "save" anybody. They just broke through an already broken nation. And they waited for just the right amount of time - the Germans had suffered some considerable losses and had stopped at the line defined by the MRP, while the Polish army was in disarray and the RKKA could just sweep in under the pretext of "saving" Poland and occupy the strategic poitions of Bialystock and the like, which it needed to later advance on Germany and the rest of Europe.

* Sorry, Poles, it's a metaphor, I'm not calling you all girls.